BraveNewCheneyWorld:whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: 1. The Constitution can be regulated, and it has been. This includes the 2nd Amendment. I asked you to bring up a court case that backs up your contention that the 2nd Amendment is not.

Fail, every instance of an amendment being "restricted" by the courts aside from the assault weapon ban had to do with the fact that you were interfering with someone's safety or freedom. Infringement on the second amendment cannot be argued to fall into this category. Simply by owning shapes of metal doesn't interfere with your life.

Bullshiat. The honorable thing to do is admit you don't have anything to back your point up. Your opinion is not a fact.

lmao, I have to prove that every restriction pertaining to our bill of rights is due to the fact that someone else's rights are being infringed if certain of our rights were unlimited? How about if you find one restriction that's not based in that idea.

whidbey: You made a point that was easily knocked down. Like a straw man. THAT is the etymology of the term. Again, the honorable thing to do is admit your point is full of shiat and easily debunked.

Oh, so that's your excuse for not using the logical fallacy properly. And you think this makes you look less stupid?

whidbey: Actually, no. And this is the third time I've pointed out your falllacies.

Feel free to declare victory in your head. You didn't point out any fallacy, you just whine a lot.

Lots of people point your fallacies and strawmen out on a regular basis. And you keep on using them, the exact same ones, over and over and over. Following in the footsteps of randomjsa, letrole, Skinnyhead, tenpoundsofcheese, I drunk what, and halfof33 isn't really the smartest idea.

You might also want to curb your eagerness to attack your perceived blessed nemeses on the left. Very few of them want to outlaw all firearms, and many of them are gun owners who want to see the idiocy of the stupid gun owners curbed and gun violence lessened. You're doing yourself, your side, and your crusade no favors by lunging at everyone who tries to offer a suggestion or solution.

Keizer_Ghidorah:Lots of people point your fallacies and strawmen out on a regular basis. And you keep on using them, the exact same ones, over and over and over. Following in the footsteps of randomjsa, letrole, Skinnyhead, tenpoundsofcheese, I drunk what, and halfof33 isn't really the smartest idea.

Sorry, but the repetition of a lie doesn't make something true. My statements aren't fallacious. They do however weaken your arguments to the point of irrelevancy, and that's why you and the fark anti gun circle jerk club keep trotting out these claims of fallacious arguments. The facts are simply not on your side, and you people never address my points directly, instead you straw man nearly every one.

Keizer_Ghidorah:You might also want to curb your eagerness to attack your perceived blessed nemeses on the left. Very few of them want to outlaw all firearms, and many of them are gun owners who want to see the idiocy of the stupid gun owners curbed and gun violence lessened. You're doing yourself, your side, and your crusade no favors by lunging at everyone who tries to offer a suggestion or solution.

Very few of your cohorts want to outlaw all firearms, but almost everyone you're trying to defend wants to outlaw specific firearms that are responsible for fewer deaths per year than the number of people who die falling down stairs. You're nothing but irrational alarmists who are trying to convince society that the responsible thing to do is to give up freedoms in a vain effort to budge statistics that are already extremely minuscule. I've even asked how low these numbers need to be for you people to finally accept that society is doing enough, nobody has ever answered.

As for your claim that I lunge at everyone who tries to offer a suggestion or solution, you already know that I'm for several common sense measures, but you have absolutely no evidence that a ban of any sort will lessen violence. Time and time again your side is asked to produce some evidence to justify your ideas and you fail to do so habitually. You don't offer solutions, you offer to advance your own personal agenda. Quite honestly, it seems that lessening deaths are not your first aim.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Keizer_Ghidorah: Lots of people point your fallacies and strawmen out on a regular basis. And you keep on using them, the exact same ones, over and over and over. Following in the footsteps of randomjsa, letrole, Skinnyhead, tenpoundsofcheese, I drunk what, and halfof33 isn't really the smartest idea.

Sorry, but the repetition of a lie doesn't make something true. My statements aren't fallacious. They do however weaken your arguments to the point of irrelevancy, and that's why you and the fark anti gun circle jerk club keep trotting out these claims of fallacious arguments. The facts are simply not on your side, and you people never address my points directly, instead you straw man nearly every one.

Keizer_Ghidorah: You might also want to curb your eagerness to attack your perceived blessed nemeses on the left. Very few of them want to outlaw all firearms, and many of them are gun owners who want to see the idiocy of the stupid gun owners curbed and gun violence lessened. You're doing yourself, your side, and your crusade no favors by lunging at everyone who tries to offer a suggestion or solution.

Very few of your cohorts want to outlaw all firearms, but almost everyone you're trying to defend wants to outlaw specific firearms that are responsible for fewer deaths per year than the number of people who die falling down stairs. You're nothing but irrational alarmists who are trying to convince society that the responsible thing to do is to give up freedoms in a vain effort to budge statistics that are already extremely minuscule. I've even asked how low these numbers need to be for you people to finally accept that society is doing enough, nobody has ever answered.

As for your claim that I lunge at everyone who tries to offer a suggestion or solution, you already know that I'm for several common sense measures, but you have absolutely no evidence that a ban of any sort will lessen violence. Time and time again your side is asked to produce some evidence to justify your ideas and you fail to do so habitually. You don't offer solutions, you offer to advance your own personal agenda. Quite honestly, it seems that lessening deaths are not your first aim.

Of course people see you as unreasonable, with your constant blanket attacks, angry accusations, and blatant conspiracy theorism. But in your mind, we're the ones who are the evil demons.

I've even asked how low these numbers need to be for you people to finally accept that society is doing enough, nobody has ever answered

Any rational, intelligent person would think "As low as is possible". Even you should have thought that. And no, regulating and POSSIBLY getting rid of CERTAIN firearms is NOT " stripping you of your rights", and you really need to stop going off on conspiracy theories of "It's just the first step that our self-sworn blessed nemeses will use to turn America into The New World Order!".

Also, your constant deflecting to things that already have numerous and stringent safety processes and features like cars and trying to make them be exactly like guns isn't helping your argument. The fallacy of this has been pointed out many, many times, but in your mind it's all strawmen because "If you don't treat everything equally all you want is to step all over my rights!". Maybe in your mind that sounds rational and truthful, but for many people on both sides you sound like a conspiracy theorist thrashing at invisible demons.

Now, maybe we can have some rational, intelligent discussion about how we can do something about this problem?

Alonjar:Yes. I dont understand how you can all be so bad at math, while claiming you arent. If I flip a coin one time, there is a 50% chance it will land on heads. If I flip a coin 100 times, is it a 50% chance it will land on heads at least once? fark no.

Be careful whom you accuse of being bad at math. According to your previous attempt at math, there would be a 5000% chance of the coin landing on heads.

Evil High Priest:BraveNewCheneyWorld: but almost everyone you're trying to defend wants to outlaw specific firearms that are responsible for fewer deaths per year than the number of people who die falling down stairs.

Yay! I can add "stairs" to the list. Nice!

I'm waiting for him to start ranting about roller skates, superballs, and concrete sidewalks next.

Keizer_Ghidorah:Of course people see you as unreasonable, with your constant blanket attacks, angry accusations, and blatant conspiracy theorism. But in your mind, we're the ones who are the evil demons.

Oh, ad hominem, how unusual. You're so pathetic, this is all you can bring to a debate.

Keizer_Ghidorah:Any rational, intelligent person would think "As low as is possible". Even you should have thought that. And no, regulating and POSSIBLY getting rid of CERTAIN firearms is NOT " stripping you of your rights", and you really need to stop going off on conspiracy theories of "It's just the first step that our self-sworn blessed nemeses will use to turn America into The New World Order!".

That's not an answer to the question that was asked. I asked you how low the number must be for you to be satisfied that gun regulation was sufficient. Saying "as low as possible" isn't an answer. Your unwillingness to answer a very simple question shows that you're not willing to be honest in this conversation.

Keizer_Ghidorah:Also, your constant deflecting to things that already have numerous and stringent safety processes and features like cars and trying to make them be exactly like guns isn't helping your argument. The fallacy of this has been pointed out many, many times, but in your mind it's all strawmen because "If you don't treat everything equally all you want is to step all over my rights!". Maybe in your mind that sounds rational and truthful, but for many people on both sides you sound like a conspiracy theorist thrashing at invisible demons.

It DOES NOT MATTER that cars have safety standards. The fact is that they wind up accounting for over twice the number of gun deaths. It does not matter that alcohol isn't intended to kill people, it still kills 5x the number of people who die from guns. The purpose of an object has no relevance, we're only measuring the raw danger posed by each object, and guns are lower than many things that people use every day. You hate this argument because it shows clearly that your fear of guns is out of proportion to their danger.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Keizer_Ghidorah: Of course people see you as unreasonable, with your constant blanket attacks, angry accusations, and blatant conspiracy theorism. But in your mind, we're the ones who are the evil demons.

Oh, ad hominem, how unusual. You're so pathetic, this is all you can bring to a debate.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Any rational, intelligent person would think "As low as is possible". Even you should have thought that. And no, regulating and POSSIBLY getting rid of CERTAIN firearms is NOT " stripping you of your rights", and you really need to stop going off on conspiracy theories of "It's just the first step that our self-sworn blessed nemeses will use to turn America into The New World Order!".

That's not an answer to the question that was asked. I asked you how low the number must be for you to be satisfied that gun regulation was sufficient. Saying "as low as possible" isn't an answer. Your unwillingness to answer a very simple question shows that you're not willing to be honest in this conversation.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Also, your constant deflecting to things that already have numerous and stringent safety processes and features like cars and trying to make them be exactly like guns isn't helping your argument. The fallacy of this has been pointed out many, many times, but in your mind it's all strawmen because "If you don't treat everything equally all you want is to step all over my rights!". Maybe in your mind that sounds rational and truthful, but for many people on both sides you sound like a conspiracy theorist thrashing at invisible demons.

It DOES NOT MATTER that cars have safety standards. The fact is that they wind up accounting for over twice the number of gun deaths. It does not matter that alcohol isn't intended to kill people, it still kills 5x the number of people who die from guns. The purpose of an object has no relevance, we're only measuring the raw danger posed by each object, and guns are lower than many things that people use every day. You hate ...

I point out how you do it all the time, even to people who respectfully answer you once, and your response is to keep doing it. Then you wonder why everyone is so mean to you.

I DID give you an answer. It's impossible to make it zero, so the next logical answer is "as low as possible". What do you want? An exact number? A detailed report on the ability and means to reach said number? Are you going to keep rejecting what you demand from people so you can continue with your tirade? I've answered your damn question several times, and you ALWAYS throw it out and scream about how I'm "unwilling" to answer it.

Here's a news flash for you: cars are used far, FAR more often than guns. They're also used in far more areas where there are lots of people and other cars. Naturally, the chance of and incidence of accidents, injuries, and deaths goes up as well. It's the same reason why so many more people are hurt and killed by domestic dogs in America than by tigers or cobras. Cars also have some of the most stringent safety standards of anything built today. Also, the subject of this debate is gun MURDERS, not car ACCIDENTS.

/and your usual diatribe of "You hate! You fear! You want to take my rights! You hate the Constitution! You this! You that!" still makes you look like a tantrum-throwing child

Keizer_Ghidorah:I DID give you an answer. It's impossible to make it zero, so the next logical answer is "as low as possible". What do you want? An exact number? A detailed report on the ability and means to reach said number? Are you going to keep rejecting what you demand from people so you can continue with your tirade? I've answered your damn question several times, and you ALWAYS throw it out and scream about how I'm "unwilling" to answer it.

You have no problem saying that 10 is the magic limit for magazine limits, so why is it so hard for you to name a number of acceptable losses per year? Honestly, you and I both know why someone on your side will never name a number, and that's because the answer will always be "lower", because the ultimate goal is incremental bans until the 2nd amendment is a memory.

Keizer_Ghidorah:Here's a news flash for you: cars are used far, FAR more often than guns. They're also used in far more areas where there are lots of people and other cars. Naturally, the chance of and incidence of accidents, injuries, and deaths goes up as well. It's the same reason why so many more people are hurt and killed by domestic dogs in America than by tigers or cobras. Cars also have some of the most stringent safety standards of anything built today. Also, the subject of this debate is gun MURDERS, not car ACCIDENTS.

Citation needed. What counts a gun "use" Is it every time one is carried? Every time one is fired? Every time one is handled? Each of those presents an opportunity for danger, doesn't it?

If your concern is life, why make any distinction between murders and accidents? Either way, death is death, people aren't any more or less dead based on the intent. Are you actually less concerned about 100,000 lives lost to preventable accidents than 10 to murder? The fact is, crime is going down naturally in the absence of any ban. The fact is that there are examples all around the world suggesting that an armed and well structured society tends to have less violence. By instituting any sort of a ban, you're upsetting that balance and risking an increase in crime, and you have literally no evidence to support the notion that your solutions will do anything but cause harm. If you have some kind of evidence that shows that disarming the U.S. will lower crime, why is your side keeping it a secret?

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Keizer_Ghidorah: I DID give you an answer. It's impossible to make it zero, so the next logical answer is "as low as possible". What do you want? An exact number? A detailed report on the ability and means to reach said number? Are you going to keep rejecting what you demand from people so you can continue with your tirade? I've answered your damn question several times, and you ALWAYS throw it out and scream about how I'm "unwilling" to answer it.

You have no problem saying that 10 is the magic limit for magazine limits, so why is it so hard for you to name a number of acceptable losses per year? Honestly, you and I both know why someone on your side will never name a number, and that's because the answer will always be "lower", because the ultimate goal is incremental bans until the 2nd amendment is a memory.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Here's a news flash for you: cars are used far, FAR more often than guns. They're also used in far more areas where there are lots of people and other cars. Naturally, the chance of and incidence of accidents, injuries, and deaths goes up as well. It's the same reason why so many more people are hurt and killed by domestic dogs in America than by tigers or cobras. Cars also have some of the most stringent safety standards of anything built today. Also, the subject of this debate is gun MURDERS, not car ACCIDENTS.

Citation needed. What counts a gun "use" Is it every time one is carried? Every time one is fired? Every time one is handled? Each of those presents an opportunity for danger, doesn't it?

If your concern is life, why make any distinction between murders and accidents? Either way, death is death, people aren't any more or less dead based on the intent. Are you actually less concerned about 100,000 lives lost to preventable accidents than 10 to murder? The fact is, crime is going down naturally in the absence of any ban. The fact is that there are examples all around the world suggesting that an armed and well structured ...

I never said shiat about magazine sizes. YOU need to stop thinking everyone who doesn't agree with you is the same person or part of some hive mind. Peppering your tirades with "YOU PEOPLE" and "YOUR SIDE" doesn't help you in any way. And now you're so far gone that you've convinced yourself that the ultimate goal of everything is to take away your gun rights. And you wonder why people can't have a simple conversation with you. Like I said, zero is an impossible number, so the next-best is as low as we can make it. You're the only one who equates that with "A SLOW MARCH TO THE DEATH OF ALL MY FREEDOMS!!".

Because we're ALREADY DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF INJURIES AND DEATHS IN CAR ACCIDENTS. Short of inventing deflector shields or adamatium, cars are as safe as they can technical-wise. Guns are nowhere near that safe, their only safety features are one switch that can easily be flipped back, or leaving the magazine entirely off the gun. How about we work on things to improve that, like fingerprint scanners that completely lock up the gun and only respond to the owner's prints?

And that brings us to the major factor in both cars and guns: humans. No amount of mechanical failsafe can 100% stop human idiocy. Driving a car requires mandatory professional training, maybe we can do that with gun owners, all gun owners are mandated to attend police-level training in usage and safety. Have the "treat all guns like they're loaded" hammered into their heads until it's an instinctive response. Curb their "Yahoo!" tendencies and lower their righteous pride a bit. And maybe do a better job of keeping guns away from criminals and gangs.

CADMonkey79:rewind2846: CADMonkey79:Maybe its because they look at guns a simply a tool, something the grow up around learn to respect and not fear. Something akin to people that love John Deere tractors or 57 Chevy's. My question is, do you have to understand it before they are allowed the right to feel that way? Is vilifying and mocking people who have done nothing illegal a good way to get them to come to a compromise or understanding when it comes to background checks or magazine restrictions?

And so you miss the very center of my argument. Would these same people have such a visceral reaction if their John Deere tractors or 1957 chevys were suddenly made illegal? Would they be willing to actually take another persons life to keep their tractor or their car? Or would they simply b*tch for awhile then move on with their lives?

And as I said before, my post has nothing to do with the legality of such objects, but the desire for such objects which brings such insanity.

This is where the strangeness comes from. Find me one other object (tool) which raises this much emotional angst, rage and outright fear over the possibility of its non-existence or even restrictions on its use. Just one.

Something is wrong here, very wrong.

Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor. Hate to break it to you but they really don't care that you don't get it. Your irrational fear of law abiding people owning guns is much stranger than their desire to own them. They don't need to provide you with another example because they don't care that you are afraid.

Irrational fear? Hardly. I've owned guns. Shot guns in the military for training. My brother has been a cop here for almost 23 years, and is due to retire soon, hopefully before some gun-wielding moron decides to retire him early. He is also a range instructor, and taught me how to shoot like the cops do. I am about average.

He also owns two guns, one for duty, and one for personal use. The personal carry is owned because there are quite a number of people whom he's jailed that might want some payback when they get out, and they will be carrying guns. To me, that is a valid and concrete reason to conceal carry, and that threat is real. They know who he is. Yet if there were no guns in the world tomorrow, he would simply crack open a soda (he doesn't drink), toast their demise, and move on.

I don't fear guns. "Guns" (the noun) are tools, metal and plastic and wood and chemicals. "Guns" (the verb) are what is dangerous. I fear gun nuts. I fear those who see every farking thing is the world as such a threat that they might shoot me instead in a misguided and mis-aimed attempt to assuage those fears.Those are the ones you see not with one gun with a trigger lock in a locked cabinet away from the ammo (as you should have), but with dozens and dozens of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo in unlocked cabinets, on the wall, in the nightstand, and under the bed... "just in case".

See, that's where you "gun aficionados" get it wrong every single time. Those of us who are speak out about guns aren't so much concerned with the tool, but the attitude of the hand that wields it. No rational person "fears" guns... what they "fear", if anything, is you.